By David Brooks
The journalists at Charlie Hebdo are now rightly
being celebrated as martyrs on behalf of freedom of expression, but let’s face
it: If they had tried to publish their satirical newspaper on any American
university campus over the last two decades it wouldn’t have lasted 30 seconds.
Student and faculty groups would have accused them of hate speech. The
administration would have cut financing and shut them down.
Public
reaction to the attack in Paris has revealed that there are a lot of people who
are quick to lionize those who offend the views of Islamist terrorists in
France but who are a lot less tolerant toward those who offend their own views
at home.
Just look at all the people who have overreacted
to campus micro-aggressions. The University of Illinois fired a professor who
taught the Roman Catholic view on homosexuality.
The University of Kansas suspended
a professor for writing a harsh tweet against the N.R.A. Vanderbilt University
derecognized a Christian group that insisted that it be led by Christians.
Americans
may laud Charlie Hebdo for being brave enough to publish cartoons ridiculing
the Prophet Muhammad, but, if Ayaan Hirsi Ali is invited to campus, there are
often calls to deny her a podium.
So
this might be a teachable moment. As we are mortified by the slaughter of those
writers and editors in Paris, it’s a good time to come up with a less
hypocritical approach to our own controversial figures, provocateurs and
satirists.
The
first thing to say, I suppose, is that whatever you might have put on your
Facebook page yesterday, it is inaccurate for most of us to claim, Je Suis
Charlie Hebdo, or I Am Charlie Hebdo.
Most of us don’t actually engage in the
sort of deliberately offensive humor that that newspaper specializes in.
We might have started out that
way. When you are 13, it seems daring and provocative to “épater la
bourgeoisie,” to stick a finger in the eye of authority, to ridicule other
people’s religious beliefs.
But
after a while that seems puerile. Most of us move toward more complicated views
of reality and more forgiving views of others. (Ridicule becomes less fun as
you become more aware of your own frequent ridiculousness.) Most of us do try
to show a modicum of respect for people of different creeds and faiths. We do
try to open conversations with listening rather than insult.
Yet,
at the same time, most of us know that provocateurs and other outlandish
figures serve useful public roles. Satirists and ridiculers expose our weakness
and vanity when we are feeling proud. They puncture the self-puffery of the
successful.
They level social inequality by bringing the mighty low. When they
are effective they help us address our foibles communally, since laughter is
one of the ultimate bonding experiences.
Moreover, provocateurs and
ridiculers expose the stupidity of the fundamentalists.
Fundamentalists are
people who take everything literally. They are incapable of multiple
viewpoints. They are incapable of seeing that while their religion may be
worthy of the deepest reverence, it is also true that most religions are kind
of weird. Satirists expose those who are incapable of laughing at themselves
and teach the rest of us that we probably should.
In short, in thinking about provocateurs and
insulters, we want to maintain standards of civility and respect while at the
same time allowing room for those creative and challenging folks who are
uninhibited by good manners and taste.
No comments:
Post a Comment